14
   

I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods.

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 01:18 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
I asked if the statement I proposed accurately reflected your position. In response, you said your statement accurately reflected your position -- a typically evasive non-answer on your part that I interpreted as a "no." Don't bother explaining how you've been misinterpreted. That has grown tiresome.


That's okay, Joe, I don't mind...and it is no trouble.

Yes, you did another of those misinterpretations. I wanted to use my wording rather than yours, so I refused to accept your rewording. And you actually characterized my refusal to defer to your wording as me SAYING "I express no belief in the existence of gods" doesn't accurately reflect (my) position…”

I didn't do that at all. That is a complete mischaracterization.

Here are your words: “Anyway, you say "I express no belief in the existence of gods" doesn't accurately reflect your position…”

The inference was unwarranted…and you probably would have been better off simply acknowledging that, indeed, I did not say what you said I said at all.

Joe, why do we have this problem?

Anyway, back to the initial question:

I do not believe gods exist. (I have explained at GREAT length that I do not mean that to be interpreted as “I believe there are no gods”, but rather exactly as the words read…that the existence of gods is not on my list of things that I believe. (Neither is anything else, but that is for another thread.)

ALSO…I do not believe there are no gods…which is to say, “there are no gods” is not on my list of things that I believe. (Nor is anything else.)

So…that seems to be absolutely clear. There seems to be no need whatsoever for any paraphrasing to make it clear. Why continue to be contentious because I insisted on using my own wording rather than yours?

Joe???
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 01:21 pm
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
means you leave open the possibility that there might be some floating around out there.
igm has been lead to think that you might have reason to leave that possibility open.


I have stated (MANY TIMES) that I do not KNOW if gods exist or do not exist...and I have stated (MANY TIMES) that I do not have a guess (or "belief" if you prefer) in either direction.

That being the case, it is obvious I am leaving both "there might be gods" AND "there might be no gods" open.


0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Tue 15 May, 2012 01:28 pm
Quote:
ALSO…I do not believe there are no gods…which is to say, “there are no gods” is not on my list of things that I believe. (Nor is anything else.)


Frank: That is not what that says: it says You don't believe there are no gods.
That means you believe there might be some.

If you and I were standing by a field that I was supposed to have removed all the sheep from leaving only the goats and you said
"I do not believe there are no sheep in this field."
that would mean what it says
--that you believe that somewhere out in the grass there be a ewe or two.

Joe(those damned twisty double negatives-sha!)Nation
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Tue 15 May, 2012 01:30 pm
Quote:
That being the case, it is obvious I am leaving both "there might be gods" AND "there might be no gods" open.


Well, cut that out.

It's a waste of time.
Joe( Neutral )Nation
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 01:31 pm
@Joe Nation,
Jonathan...I want to say this as nicely as possible: Go away.

I have stated my position very clearly...there is no doubt about what I am saying. If you want to play a game...go play it somewhere else with someone else.
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:06 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not a weak atheist.

The term fits. Why do you object?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am sure I have mentioned this before.

Ad infinatum, but it still fits, Frank.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If I use a label, the correct one would be "agnostic."

That word may also fit, but atheist is no less correct.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Agnostics do share some traits in common with (weak) atheists...but that does not make me a weak atheist.


A
R
Tell us what traits separate the two.
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I'm not playing a game anymore than anybody else is in these, so far, ten pages (so much for 'I have stated my position very clearly.') a clearly stated position would have been agreed to on page one.
No?

Have fun, my only advice to you is stop trying to have it both ways.

Joe(you'll get yourself a headache and a hernia)Nation
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:13 pm
@Joe Nation,
What's your problem, Bubba . . . you were told to go away . . . sheesh . . .
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:22 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
The term fits. Why do you object?


I object because I am NOT a weak atheist...nor any other kind of atheist. I am an agnostic. I do appreciate that you atheists want me to be one of you, but I must decline as politely as possible.


Quote:
Ad infinatum, but it still fits, Frank.


Because I share a characteristic with some weak atheists does not make me a weak atheist any more than the fact that I share some characteristics with an orangutan makes me an orangutan. Try to grasp that. It is not that difficult.

Quote:
That word may also fit, but atheist is no less correct.


Atheist definitely is less correct. Once again, I am honored that you want so very much for me to be an atheist, but I must respectfully decline.

Quote:
Tell us what traits separate the two.


Well, for one, atheists call themselves atheists; agnostics call themselves agnostics. For another, some atheists absolutely deny the existence of gods...no agnostic absolutely denies the existence of gods. For another, many atheists would prefer to be called mass murders than to be called agnostics. Most agnostics do not feel that way. There are more, but that should be sufficient.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Is your butt red?
thack45
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:27 pm
@Setanta,
I like your new 'do set... what'dya have to go to court?
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:29 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:

Joe(you'll get yourself a headache and a hernia)Nation

A
R
That would be hard unless your head was up your own ass... oh...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:30 pm
@Rockhead,
Is your butt red?


Nope...that is not one of the traits we share in common.

Mostly it has to do with the nose!
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
The term fits. Why do you object?


I object because I am NOT a weak atheist...nor any other kind of atheist. I am an agnostic. I do appreciate that you atheists want me to be one of you, but I must decline as politely as possible.

Yes, I know you object, but I asked why.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Ad infinatum, but it still fits, Frank.


Because I share a characteristic with some weak atheists does not make me a weak atheist any more than the fact that I share some characteristics with an orangutan makes me an orangutan. Try to grasp that. It is not that difficult.

From wiki:

Positive atheism is a term used to describe the form of atheism that asserts that no deity exists.[1] Negative atheism refers to any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but without asserting there to be none.[1][2]

You are a weak (negative) atheist.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
That word may also fit, but atheist is no less correct.


Atheist definitely is less correct. Once again, I am honored that you want so very much for me to be an atheist, but I must respectfully decline.

If you want to decline being an atheist, the only way I know of is for you to say you believe in at least one god.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Tell us what traits separate the two.


Well, for one, atheists call themselves atheists; agnostics call themselves agnostics.

I asked for traits. A person may incorrectly label many things. This includes themselves. Some people don't like that they have brown eyes, doesn't mean they can say that they have green eyes.

Frank Apisa wrote:

For another, some atheists absolutely deny the existence of gods...no agnostic absolutely denies the existence of gods.

I notice your use of the word "some." I already know you're not a positive (strong) atheist, Frank.

Frank Apisa wrote:

For another, many atheists would prefer to be called mass murders than to be called agnostics.

I asked for traits. This is not one of them, nor is it even true. I don't object to being called an agnostic. It accurately describes my state of knowledge on the matter. That state is not mutually exclusive with me being an atheist.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Most agnostics do not feel that way.

I asked for traits.

Do you speak for all agnostics. We've gone from "knowing," to "believing," and now were at "feeling."

Frank Apisa wrote:

There are more, but that should be sufficient.

It is not satisfactory. I asked for traits. If you plan to separate the two things, you should be able to point to specific criteria. These are all red herring.

A
R
T
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:44 pm
@thack45,
Jeeze, Boss . . . keep that under yer hat, will ya ? ! ? ! ?
thack45
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:52 pm
@Setanta,
Hey, I assumed you were just the plaintiff... you runnin' some sorta sketchy gravy train job up there?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 03:58 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
Yes, I know you object, but I asked why.


And I told you why!

Quote:
From wiki:

Positive atheism is a term used to describe the form of atheism that asserts that no deity exists.[1] Negative atheism refers to any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but without asserting there to be none.[1][2]

You are a weak (negative) atheist.


Nope, I am an agnostic. But I have got to give you high marks for determination in your recruiting! I am honored, as I mentioned, but I have to decline.


Quote:
If you want to decline being an atheist, the only way I know of is for you to say you believe in at least one god.


And why is that??????

Quote:

I asked for traits. This is not one of them, nor is it even true. I don't object to being called an agnostic. It accurately describes my state of knowledge on the matter. That state is not mutually exclusive with me being an atheist.


So...because YOU do not object to being called an agnostic, my comment
", MANY atheists would prefer to be called mass murders than to be called agnostics." Is wrong????

Do you think before you post?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  3  
Tue 15 May, 2012 05:01 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I object because I am NOT a weak atheist...nor any other kind of atheist. I am an agnostic


Quote:
USHER. Six rabbits!
RABBITS. Here!
RAT. I object, my lord.
JUDGE (surprised) Object?
RAT. One of the rabbits is a weasel.
CHIEF WEASEL (indignantly, rising) I'm not! I'm a rabbit.
RAT. He's a weasel.
JUDGE. Dear, dear! A difference of opinion. (To the Usher) What are we to do? What does one do?
USHER. He says he's a rabbit, my lord, and he ought to know.
CHIEF WEASEL. Naturally there are lots of different kinds of rabbit, and I'm one of the different kinds.

from Toad of Toad Hall

Frank. You are clearly a weasel!
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 05:03 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Frank. You are clearly a weasel.


I hope calling me a weasel made you feel good, Fresco. Whatever works!
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Tue 15 May, 2012 05:23 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:

I hope calling me a weasel made you feel good, Fresco. Whatever works!



It kinda made me feel good. 2 Cents
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 03:26:40